As is well-known, when a laser is emitted from one optical transceiver and transmitted to another optical transceiver via a properly connected fiber, a completed communication mechanism and channel exists so that emitted laser can be conveyed properly. As is required by international laser safety standards, in order to prevent exposing the naked eye to laser leakage, the total output energy of the laser when a fiber is not connected needs to be efficiently regulated. Thus, when the fiber is connected to the optical transceiver interfaces on both sides, the laser beam can be properly conveyed as a defined energy request after a communication mechanism (or protocol) and channels between both sides are complete.
Currently, the total output of a laser is conventionally restricted by the handshake mode (e.g., the process of one device connecting with another device) between optical transceivers. The handshake mode between optical transceivers can be implemented in a plurality of ways. For instance, optical transmission(s) in N−1 channels between the optical transceivers are disabled, and only one channel stands by for the handshake mode, and after the handshake process is finished, then all of the channels are enabled for normal laser transmission. Different manufacturers provide different handshake modes and/or protocols. However, all of the various handshake modes or protocols have one fundamental issue, which is that the architecture can be realized generally only when the optical transceivers at the transmitting end and the receiving end are from the same manufacturer. The optical transceivers at the transmitting end and the receiving end must be informed of the mechanism of the handshake so that the handshake can be determined. However, with regard to the terminals in the handshake, this property is not described in any applicable multisource agreement (MSA). Thus, compatibility issues caused by handshake mechanisms exist in real world applications.
This “Discussion of the Background” section is provided for background information only. The statements in this “Discussion of the Background” are not an admission that the subject matter disclosed in this “Discussion of the Background” section constitutes prior art to the present disclosure, and no part of this “Discussion of the Background” section may be used as an admission that any part of this application, including this “Discussion of the Background” section, constitutes prior art to the present disclosure.